6 October 2013

A Scottish eye on Éire...

Yesterday, the Republic of Ireland rejected the Sinn Féin-supported Fine Gael-Labour government proposal to roll up the second house of the Oireachtas, leaving the proportionally-elected Dáil as the Republic's solitary parliamentary chamber. By all accounts, the constitutional referendum was a bit of a boorach, but as a consequences of the narrow vote for retention, Ireland's unreformed Seanad lives on, leaving the country in the bicameral column in terms of democratic states.

Like our own beloved House of Lords, with its dubious mixture of political appointees, a small phalanx of hereditaries and Church of England bishops, the sixty-soul Seanad is not directly elected by the Irish people, but are formed according to a dizzying array of protocols. The Taoiseach gets eleven. Historical elitism gives the graduates of certain Irish universities six more, while the balance of forty three more are plucked from obscurity by "vocational panels" of some sort.

Even to the outsider's eye, this doesn't sound ideal. I'm poorly placed to reflect on the internal fallout for Irish constitutionality and politics but the Irish referendum does pose interesting questions for those of us, looking forward to a Yes vote in 2014, and beyond, when thinking about the constitutional structures an independent Scotland could and should adopt.

Given our constitutional traditions and history, and the Nationalist plots to retain the Queen as head of state, it seems unlikely that a presidential system will hold many appeals for the new nation. Parliamentary democracy's almost certain to be the thing, and a good thing too, you might well think. But what sort of parliamentary arrangement? And what values ought to inform that choice? It's a big topic which I'm just going to dip into here, but I wanted to sketch a few of the issues we'll have to think about.

Firstly, and most elementarily, should we have a second chamber at all? Do we need one? If you look at democratic nations of similar size, the Danes get by with just their 179 MP Folketing, as does the 120-strong Israeli Knesset. On the other hand, U.S. states of parallel populations often maintain bicameral state governments. For instance, Colorado, with a population of just under 5,200,000 folk, supports a directly-elected governor, and a state House and Senate with 65 members and 35 members respectively. Coming in at 129 MSPs, devolved Holyrood will seem to many folk sufficient. Why multiply our politicians? Why have two chambers at all?

Use and convenience will may unicameralism attractive to many, but there are problems with the status quo. Holyrood's current procedures leave it particularly vulnerable to last-minute government amendments. Bills go through three stages. The first two involve extensive Committee involvement, including calls for evidence, scrutiny, debate. The third stage, by contrast, is usually raced through the whole chamber in a single sitting. It is commonplace for the government to attach new, entirely unscrutinised provisions at stage 3, meaning that wholly unscrutinised provisions hit the statute book. This is a recipe for mischief.

In a bicameral system, this wouldn't be possible in the same fashion, and the second revising chamber would have an opportunity to arrest the now irresistible speed at which a unicameral legislature can adopt new laws. Bicameralism is not, however, the only solutions to these challenges, but it is one potential way to make space for laws to be properly considered. On the other hand, some folk are understandably concerned that an elected second chamber would find itself in political competition with the first. Which brings us to the question of appointment.

Although it seems unlikely to be politically acceptable, we might consider the ideal if not the detail of the Irish Seanad model, forming a second chamber from knowledgeable sorts from different aspects of civic life, to inform our legislative process. Different appointment mechanisms might be considered. Alternatively, we sturdy democrats might favour direct election across the parliamentary board. If so, there is still the possibility that the two parliamentary chambers could be elected according to different franchises, to serve different constitutional goals.

For example, the Electoral Reform Society have recently mooted the idea that a revising chamber could be composed of a revolving group of average punters, selected by lot. Alternatively, we might take our inspiration from the Americas, and try to use a second chamber to reflect Scottish regional diversity. Holyrood's current set up means that the more-populous parts of the country politically dominate Scotland's lower-population, usually rural corners. For much of Holyrood's early history, this was represented in the rule of the predominantly urban Labour Party (albeit with more rurally-inclined Liberal Democratic allies).

Might an independent Scotland want to use a second chamber to even out these imbalances of population, giving minorities greater influence on the political process? This sort of thinking informs the American approach where, for example, seats in the federal House of Representatives are allocated on the basis of population, but every state, regardless of size, has two senators. Senators are also less-regularly elected than their House of Representative colleagues (and if I remember my United States constitution correctly, must by law be more ancient than your callow congressman).

A recipe for political gridlock? Maybe. But it is also an attempt to build safeguards into the democratic system so that the majority cannot always overwhelm the minority. Although the scale of the independent Scottish state would differ significantly from our American cousins, Scotland has its own geographical politics which we might want to take account of constitutionally. A second chamber could reflect these interests and values. We could even ape the provisions of the UK Parliament Act, allowing the populist "representative" chamber to override decisions reached by a second, regionally representative body. A veto isn't inevitable. Everywhere, there will be constitutional choices for the new Scotland to mull over.

If we achieve a Yes vote next September, we're going to have to think about all of these sorts of issues. Although the noisy voices of common sense will, as always, claim their preferred models are inevitable and obvious, a new constitution represents an opportunity to approach our politics in different ways, requiring us to think about the values we want to privilege in the process. For that reason at least, Ireland's abortive lurch towards unicameralism has lessons, and poses questions, for us all.

13 comments
:

The Irish senate in its post-indy era had one of the greatest of all speeches in English, by Yeats -

'. . .I wish to close more seriously; this is a matter of very great seriousness. I think it is tragic that within three years of this country gaining its independence we should be discussing a measure which a minority of this nation considers to be grossly oppressive. I am proud to consider myself a typical man of that minority. We against whom you have done this thing, are no petty people. We are one of the great stocks of Europe. We are the people of Burke; we are the people of Grattan; we are the people of Swift, the people of Emmet, the people of Parnell. . .'

Curiously, the theme of minority opinion has been on my mind lately. I'm always a bit bemused by the incautious way some of our commentators identify their own views with the Scottish public. As a life-long holder of minority opinions, the ease with which this projection seems to occur is decidedly puzzling.

As ever, a thought-provoking piece. We might consider the German model, where the revising chamber, the Bundesrat, is neither appointed nor directly elected but indirectly elected by the members of the regional (Land) assemblies. That seems to respect the principle of representation while assuring the primacy of the directly elected chamber.

The idea of making eligibility for election to a revising chamber dependent on previous service to the comm weal (to be defined) might also be worth considering. Certainly patronage is not a good principle.

Wikipedia : The NI Senate consisted of 26 members. Twenty-four members elected by the House of Commons of Northern Ireland using the Single Transferable Vote (STV), elected in blocks of twelve with each senator's term lasting for two parliaments (i.e. two terms of the House of Commons) and two ex-officio members: the Lord Mayor of Belfast and Mayor of Londonderry.

You absolutely must have a second chamber. In Queensland, the Government with an overall majority is writing and burning legislation as it sees fit, under the notion of a 'mandate'. It believes that because it secured a majority in the house that they have free reign to monopolise the State. Other Australian States have the checks and balances of an upper house, as does the federal government. The experience we are having in Queensland is I think the model of despotism that has no legal challenge, no constitutional challenge and is backed by a press corp that is partisan to the ideology of the far right party that runs the state. (70% of newspapers in Australia belong to Rupert Murdoch's Media Empire).

Which raises the possibility, to my mind, of alternative measures to achieve the same goals. Using a PR electoral system usually minimises the likelihood of an unrepresentative majority government being installed. Indeed, a bit of tinkering with the system - replacing d'Hondt allocation with Sainte-Laguë say - might represent an alternative step, in terms of protecting minority interests too.

Worried makes a good point. The regional nature of the Australian Federal Senate was intended to ensure that less populous regions (States & Territories) were not overriden. A similar system in Scotland would go some way to mitigating concerns that a Scottish Parliament would only reflect the priorities of the Central Belt. Currently, triennial Australian elections have a full lower house election plus a half senate election. Each State and Territory uses a transferrable vote to elect a number of Senators. This would permit representation of Highlands, Islands, Shetland etc. in a way that would provide security in a house of review.

I thought I'd pitch the geographical idea in there, as it is just the sort of thing which a common-sense, steady-as-she-goes unicameralism would want to overlook. Again, it is really all about the sort of values you want to see protected by your democratic procedures (including the decided will of the majority).

It is an interesting, some might argue vital discussion for a form of constitutional convention after a YES vote. A unicameral system can work, but needs 'restraining' by appropriate checks and balances, and the last thing we should be going is replicating the Westminster model.

But, governments tend to want to govern. Perhaps we (as citizens) are too used to parliaments passing legislation. Maybe there is too much unnecessary legislation, and that, often too quickly drafted (with unforeseen consequences once they are implemented) and are "knee-jerk" reactions to a horror story - e.g. Dunblane.

I tend to favour an elected second chamber with equal representation from, say, 20 regions in Scotland, with 2/3 representatives form each. Similar to the US model in that each region has an equal voice. This may help to reduce the emphasis on the Central Belt where, let's be honest, most of the power currently lies.

Nor I, Tony. I can see different balances of advantage and disadvantage in all the different approaches. It seems important, however, to begin encouraging folk to think about some of the options and choices which might lie before us, soon.

“I think of him more of a long nosed, elegantly coiffed Afghan pawing through his leather bound library whilst disdainfully inhaling a puddle of Armagnac in an immense crystal snifter. If he can also lift his leg over his shoulder and lick his balls...” ~ Conan the Librarian™

“... the erudite and loquacious Peat Worrier who never knowingly avoids a prolix circumlocution.” ~Love and Garbage

“My initial mind picture was of a scanty bikini'd individual wallowing in a bath tub of peat. However I've since learned to warm to him, and like peat he's slow to draw but quick to heat...” ~Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers

Definition: "to worry peat" v.

"Peat worrying" is the little known or understood process for the extraction of cultural peat, practised primarily in the Lowlands of Scotland by aspirant urban rustics. Primary implements by means of which successful "worrying" is achieved include the traditional oxter-flaughter but also the sharp-edged kailyard and the innovative skirlie stramasher.